Linking Perceived Organizational Frustration to Work Engagement

Abstract

The study examined the link between perceived organizational frustration and work engagement and the moderating roles of sense of calling and psychological meaningfulness in this link. Primary and postprimary (high) school teachers (N = 207) from Southeast Nigeria were sampled for the study. Consistent with our propositions, perceived frustration was found to be negatively related to work engagement. Sense of calling and psychological meaningfulness were positively related to work engagement. The results of the moderated regression analyses showed that teachers with high sense of calling were found to be more engaged with their work regardless of perceiving high organizational frustration than their counterparts with low sense of calling. More so, teachers with high psychological meaningfulness were reported to be more engaged with their work despite experiencing high organizational frustration than their counterparts with low psychological meaningfulness. The results of the study suggest that enhancement of sense of calling and work meaningfulness among teachers is desirous, as they could ensure positive work behaviors even in the presence of challenging work environment.

Keywords

perceived organizational frustration sense of calling psychological meaningfulness work engagement teachers

People who want to make the world a better place for humanity often choose careers in public service (Bakker, 2015). Among employees in people-oriented professions who often experience burnout, teachers seem to be the most vulnerable in developing countries including Nigeria (Nwikina & Nwanekezi, 2010). Teachers in Nigeria are threatened by poverty and exploitation. For example, they are paid substantially less compared to other public servants, and often times their salaries are not paid for several months (Arong & Ogbadu, 2010). They receive little incentives and have limited development and promotion opportunities. The issue of teacher motivation is very low, their status has substantially waned and teaching in Nigeria has become an endangered profession (Famade, 2012). Teachers’ level of work engagement in public schools appears to have been obstructed as they now supplement their income by taking on additional menial jobs to the detriment of their level of engagement and their pedagogical performance. Alongside absence of engagement and resultant poor performance, many teachers build up frustration, lose meaning and purpose at work and become disengaged from their work (Kelly, 1999; Rothmann & Hamukang’andu, 2013). These teachers may need to have the conviction that they are called into teaching profession (work belief) and find meaning in their work for work engagement to take place.

Employee work engagement has been defined as “a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). Employee work engagement has continued to flourish in organizational behavior research and among practitioners (e.g., Albrecht, 2010; Bakker & Leiter, 2010). Kahn (1990) described engaged employees as those who focus their physical, cognitive, and emotional energy on the pursuit of role-related goals. Although scholars have taken different standpoints on engagement, high energy and high levels of involvement are central in all the perspectives (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011). Organizations might foster employee work engagement by creating resourceful and challenging work environments as previous studies have suggested (e.g., Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009) due to its positive outcomes.

Numerous scholars (e.g., Breevaart, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2014; Derks, van Duin, Tims, & Bakker, 2015) have conducted research on the construct of work engagement. This has led to the accumulation of rich literature on what facilitates work engagement, for example, work role fit (e.g., Rothmann & Rothmann, 2010), perceived fairness (e.g., Miles, Van den Bos, & Schaufeli, 2009; Inoue et al., 2009), organizational level and organizational tenure (e.g., Burke, Koyuncu, Jing, & Fiksenbaum, 2009), organizational trust and psychological empowerment (e.g., Ugwu, Onyishi, & Rodríguez-Sánchez, 2014), and transformational leadership (e.g., Breevaart et al., 2014). Also research has focused on the consequences of work engagement such as performance (e.g., Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Gorgievski, 2010), helping others (i.e., extrarole behavior; e.g., Bakker & Bal, 2010), and turnover intention and organizational commitment (e.g., Simpson, 2009). Bakker and Demerouti (2008) suggested that employees with high work engagement will find their work interesting and will experience positive affects, including happiness, joy, and enthusiasm. Macey and Schneider (2008) argued that work engagement has positive valence and that what makes engagement unique is its sense of energy and enthusiasm. That is why work engagement is viewed as the activated state of positive work-related affect with raised motivation (e.g., Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). In this regard, empirical evidence is mounting confirming that employee work engagement is an important asset for both the employees (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008) and organizations (Christian et al., 2011). This is because engagement has all the necessary constituents capable of leading organizations to the path of success.

However, different scholars have different conceptualizations of calling. Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton (1985) used “calling” along with “job” and “career” to describe three different orientations that individuals hold toward their work. Dik and Duffy (2009) in their description asserted that the definition of calling embraced some or all of the following components as they relate to one’s career: meaning, purpose, altruism, an external summons, and a prosocial orientation (Dik & Duffy, 2009). Rosso, Dekas, and Wrzesniewski (2010) define psychological meaningfulness as the amount of significance a job has for the individual. Psychological meaningfulness is the importance one attaches to one’s existence and includes the value one places on the existence of life and on the course of one’s life (Taubman-Ben-Ari & Weintroub, 2008). Individuals who experience meaningfulness tend to find their roles inviting, feel worthwhile, useful, valuable, and able to give themselves to their work role and to others or fully engage themselves (Kahn, 1992). Kahn also stated that when individuals find that their role expectations demand for behaviors that they feel are inappropriate for their preferred self-images, they feel devalued, taken advantage of, and less willing to give themselves to their work roles.

Frustration occurs when there is an inhibiting condition that obstructs the realization of a goal (Lazar, Jones, & Shneiderman, 2006). Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears (1939) cited in Lazar, Jones, and Shneiderman (2006) define frustration as an interference with the occurrence of an instigated goal response at its proper time in the behavior sequence. Frustration is due to the expectation and anticipation of a goal not the actual attainment of the goal (Berkowitz, 1978). If the goal is unfulfilled, frustration is experienced because satisfaction was not achieved and hopes were suddenly thwarted (Lazar et al., 2006). Keenan and Newton (1984) asserted that frustration is the interference with an individuals’ ability to often carry out their duties effectively. Perceived organizational frustration therefore refers to an interference with goal attainment or maintenance that is caused by some stimulus condition within the organization (Spector, 1978). According to Spector, the sources of organizational frustration include the physical environment, the organizational structure and climate, the rules and procedures of the organization, and individuals both in and out of the organization. Spector (1978) suggested four reactions to organizational frustration: an emotional response of anger and increased physiological arousal, trying alternative courses of action, aggression, and withdrawal. Examples of maladaptive responses to frustration in an organization include withdrawal behavior (absenteeism or turnover) and aggression (sabotage and withholding of output). These maladaptive responses are thought to lead to poor job performance (Lazar et al., 2006).

However, earlier studies conceptualized sense of calling as antecedent of psychological meaningfulness at work (Duffy, Bott, Allan, Torrey, & Dik, 2012; Hirschi, 2012). Also calling has been related to positive work behaviors and cross-cultural studies on the construct has began to emerge (e.g., Autin, Allan, Palaniappan, & Duffy, 2016), and none of such studies to our knowledge has been conducted in the developing countries of Africa.

Psychological meaningfulness has been observed as a major predictor of work engagement (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). In fact, increased psychological meaningfulness at work seems to be the reason callings are related to work engagement (Rothmann & Hamukang’andu, 2013). Calling and work meaningfulness are very much related but are theoretically distinct because work can be perceived as meaningful due to certain features of the job (e.g., feedback, task clarity; see Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007) that are independent of whether the work is perceived as one’s purpose in life (i.e., a calling; Hirschi, 2012). Despite interests in these two work-related constructs, no study has yet to our knowledge explored their moderating roles in the frustration–engagement link. Filling these obvious gaps in literature is the main goal of our study.

Theoretical Background

The negative relationship between organizational frustration, an emotionally demanding condition, and employee work engagement could be explained by the health impairment process of the job demands–resources (JD–R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In view of this, factors that impede work engagement such as frustrating conditions that require energy investment that may use up employees’ resource reservoir may be captured in the JD–R theory. When this energy is depleted, it may be psychologically damaging to that individual (Samman, 2007), job strain is likely to occur which in turn may undermine employee work engagement.

JD–R theory, an organizational theory that grew out of job stress research, has continued to grow in popularity. Job demands component of work engagement refers to aspects of the work context that cost energy (e.g., organizational frustration). Job resources component, on the other hand, refers to aspects of the work and personal contexts that help employees deal with job demands, satisfy basic psychological needs, and achieve organizational goals (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Ultimately, the direct and interactive roles of JD–R on work engagement are well documented (e.g., Airila, 2015; van Woerkom, Bakker, & Nishii, 2016), but despite the robust studies on job resources as intervening variables in the negative relationship between job demands and strain on work engagement, the moderating roles of sense of calling and psychological meaningfulness have to our knowledge never been examined.

Teachers frequently experience high levels of job stress, which negatively impact their perception of meaningfulness at work (George, Louw, & Badenhorst, 2008; Schulze & Steyn, 2007). It has been argued that traditional career paths are rapidly becoming outdated (Briscoe & Hall, 2006) and employees now expect more from their work than financial rewards and promotions (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). Extrinsic benefits which provide fulfillment of core personal values (Judge & Bretz, 1992), meaning and purpose (Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003), self-expression (Kahn, 1990; Shamir, 1991), and opportunities to help others (Grant, 2007; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003) have become pertinent. It is argued that individuals in people-oriented work contexts not only seek jobs, they also seek a calling (Berg, Grant, & Johnson, 2010; Heslin, 2005). Work is usually associated with a series of psychological benefits including increased life, health, and job satisfaction (Hall & Chandler, 2005; Heslin, 2005) especially when it is experienced as a calling. Wrzesniewski, Dekas, and Rosso (2009) define a calling as a “meaningful beckoning toward activities that are morally, socially and personally significant” (p. 181). When one’s occupation is perceived as calling, it is often associated with feelings of strong emotional inclinations toward work-related activities that individuals find appealing, essential, and worth spending their time and energy (Vallerand et al., 2003). On the other hand, feeling unable to pursue a calling may undermine psychological well-being by generating a high level of frustration (Scheier & Carver, 1988), disappointment (Bell, 1985), or regret (Gilovich & Medvec, 1995), which may eventually obstruct job performance (e.g., Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Because sense of calling to work offers a unique fulfillment and meaning to one’s work and yields positive work behavior (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997), most management of organizations would like to promote it in their workforce. People with a sense of calling to work do not seek financial incentive but work for the fulfillment they obtain from the work itself. Such people view their work as an end in itself rather than a means to an end (Rothmann & Hamukang’andu, 2013). They display this positive behavior not considering whether or not they feel they are receiving adequate reward for their extra work (Wrzesniewski, 2012).

Duffy, Allan, and Bott (2012) conceptualized calling as a meaningful and prosocial career prompted by an external force. This different in researcher’s opinion on calling may be due to its newness in the academic literature and a lack of research on the construct in that only about 15 empirical studies have been published to date (Duffy, Allan, & Bott, 2012). Bunderson and Thompson (2009) blamed this confusion on the religious origins of calling, which they said have complicated efforts to converge on a single secular definition. Therefore, a single and testable definition of calling eluded researchers until Dik and Duffy (2009) examined and gathered together essential elements of previous definitions and defined calling as,
a transcendent summons, experienced as originating beyond the self, to approach a particular life role in a manner oriented toward demonstrating or deriving a sense of purpose or meaningfulness and that holds other-oriented values and goals as primary sources of motivation. (p. 427)
As a new construct, calling represents a sort of “minitheory” that has not yet developed into more recognized theories of vocational behavior or well-being.

Following the definition offered by Dik and Duffy (2009), the link between calling, meaningfulness, and work engagement can be best explained by Ryff and Singer’s (1998) model of positive human health. Ryff and Singer proposed that living a happy life includes both hedonic and eudemonic behaviors and activities and speculated that seeking eudemonic fulfillment may be the best means to authentic and lasting happiness. According to Ryff and Singer (1998), a fundamental component of eudemonia is living a life of purpose and meaning. Viewing one’s career as a calling represents purpose and meaning within the domain of work (Duffy et al., 2012).

Development of Hypotheses

Perceived organizational frustration and work engagement

Research evidence shows that the frustration–performance link is mixed. While some cases of mild frustration are found to increase task performance, presumably due to increased arousal (Spector, 1975), others found that frustration actually slow down both task performance and acquiring new skills. In a sample of employed individuals, significant relationships were found between both self-reported sabotage and interpersonal aggression with level of frustration as measured by the Organizational Frustration Scale (Spector, 1975). Frustration was also found to be strongly related to a self-reported intention to leave the organization. Among engineers, Keenan and Newton (1984) found that organizational climate, role stress, and social support all correlated positively with environmental frustration. Additionally, Keenan and Newton found that frustration was significantly related to angry emotional reactions, latent hostility, and job dissatisfaction. Storms and Spector (1987) showed that organizational frustration is positively related to numerous negative behavioral reactions such as aggression, sabotage, hostility and complaining, withdrawal, and intent to quit. Recently, researches claim that frustration leads to supporting perceived organizational politics (Rauh, 2015; Rosen, Harris, & Kacmar, 2009), harming justice (Lillis, Krystofiak, & Newman, 2007), and prompting employees to exhibit counterproductive behavior (Fox & Spector, 1999). Based on these prior studies, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived organizational frustration will be negatively related to work engagement.

Sense of calling (work belief) as a moderator

From theoretical viewpoint, people with a strong sense of calling in their careers experience a deep sense of meaning, dedication, and personal involvement in their work (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011; Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, 2010), which is conceptually related to work engagement (Hirschi, 2012). Difference from work engagement, callings also involves a deep-seated excitement toward work and a sense of fulfilling one’s life purpose in work (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011). However, calling has been found to affect individual career development and organizations in various ways. For example, callings have been positively related to increased job satisfaction or organizational commitment (e.g., Duffy, Bott, et al., 2012; Duffy, Dik, & Steger, 2011). Duffy, Allan, and Dik (2011) analyzed data from 370 university employees and found that those with a strong sense of calling reported greater career commitment, organizational commitment, and lower turnover intentions, with career commitment serving as a mediator between calling, organizational commitment, and withdrawal intentions. Individuals with a sense of calling put in extra effort and time at work and they display this positive behavior regardless of whether or not they feel they are receiving adequate compensation for their extra work (Hall & Chandler, 2005; Wrzesniewski, 2012; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997).

Generally, most of these studies imply that employees who are more likely to perceive their job as a calling tend to be more committed to their jobs and organizations; they feel a strong fit between their job and their personal preferences. Furthermore, some qualitative studies especially of academics, zookeepers, and psychologists (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Duffy, Allan, & Bott, 2012; Oates, Hall, & Anderson, 2005) confirmed these results. In such qualitative studies, participants talked about the strong commitment they had to their jobs and the sense of meaning they felt at work (Duffy & Dik, 2013). Duffy, Allan, and Dik (2011) found that career commitment actually acted as a suppressor variable in the link between calling and withdrawal intentions; that is, individuals with a calling who were not committed to their career were more likely to have intentions to quit their current job. Although positive relationships between callings, personal, and organizational variables have been documented, theoretical and empirical studies that attempts to explain the influence of calling on work engagement have been scarce (Cardador, Dane, & Pratt, 2011; Duffy et al., 2011; Steger, Pickering, Shin, & Dik, 2010). In Germany, Hirschi (2012) investigated the relationship between calling and work engagement as mediated by work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy—and found that this mediation depends on the degree of perceived person-job fit. In this study, Hirschi found that the mediated relations of callings to work engagement were not conditional upon the degree of person-job fit. In contrast to Hirschi’s (2012) study, we examine sense of calling and psychological meaningfulness as moderating variables in the link between organizational frustration and work engagement. In this sense, calling could become a suppressor in the relationship between frustration and work engagement.

Based on the above, it is proposed that:
Hypothesis 2: Sense of calling will be positively related to work engagement.

Hypothesis 3: Sense of calling will moderate the negative relationship between perceived organizational frustration and work engagement, such that the relationship will be weaker when sense of calling is high than when it is low.

Psychological meaningfulness as a moderator

Psychological meaningfulness defined as the significance a person attaches to an object, events, or situation has been found to be related to work engagement. Individual’s experience of psychological meaningfulness as well as meaning of work result in positive work-related outcomes (Olivier & Rothmann, 2007; Wrzesniewski, 2012). For example, Isaksen (2000) found that 75% of employees in repetitive work overall find their work life meaningful and 82% would continue to work even if they could receive the same salary for staying at home. Treadgold (1999) found that employees who were more engaged in meaningful work were more intrinsically motivated than employees with a low level of meaningfulness. More so, majority of employees wish for their work to be meaningful (Treadgold, 1999). Research (e.g., Swart & Rothmann, 2012) documented that experiences of psychological meaningfulness and employee work engagement are positively related to life satisfaction, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and low turnover intention. Kahn (1990) and May, Gilson, and Harter (2004) showed that work roles and activities which are in tandem with individuals’ self-concepts are related to more psychologically meaningful work experiences, which also impact individuals’ work engagement in a positive fashion. May et al. (2004) emphasized that psychological meaningfulness is an important predictor of work engagement. Matuska and Christiansen (2008) stated that psychological meaningfulness is a shield to employees experiencing stressful conditions. In a situation where employees experience frustration, psychological meaningfulness could become a resource to enable such individuals overcome such negative event to engage in positive work behaviors. Based on the above argument, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 4: Psychological meaningfulness will be positively related to work engagement.

Hypothesis 5: Psychological meaningfulness will moderate the negative relationship between perceived organizational frustration and work engagement, such that the relationship will be weaker when psychological meaningfulness is high than when it is low.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were recruited from nine primary schools in Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Southeastern Nigeria. The instruments for the study were administered to a total of 236 teachers. Of this number, only 219 questionnaires were completed and returned, resulting in 92.77% response rate. Of this number, 12 copies were discarded due to improper completion and 207 copies were used for analyses. The sample consisted of 131 females (63.29%) and 76 males (36.71%). The ages of the participants ranged from 33 to 54 years with average age of (M = 41.94 years old; standard deviation [SD] = 6.10). On average, participants had worked for 12.44 years in the teaching profession (SD = 6.60). The average organizational tenure of the participants was (M = 6.87 years; SD = 2.92). We have an exclusion criterion in that data on cultural factors were not considered because the experiences and work conditions of teachers tend to differ across different ethnic groups in Nigeria (Akinwumi, 2000). The participants have similar cultural background since all of them are of Igbo ethnic group. Participation in the study was voluntary.

Measures

Organizational frustration was measured using a 4-item scale with seven response options. Three items were from the Organizational Frustration Scale (Spector, 1975), and 1 item was adapted from the job-induced tension section of the Anxiety–Stress Questionnaire (House & Rizzo, 1972). The scale was rated on a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Other researchers (e.g., Shaw, Duffy, Abdulla, & Singh, 2000) also adopted similar items for their study. These items were selected because of their ability to tap on-the-job frustration and pressures resulting from job requirements. Sample items include I often feel frustrated at work and I often feel trapped in my job. Cronbach’s α of .73 was established for the current study. Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived organizational frustration.

The Work–Life Questionnaire (WLQ; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) was adapted to measure teachers’ levels of calling as a work belief. Seven items were used to measure a sense of calling. The items were rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 not at all to 4 completely. Example of a sample item is I find my work rewarding. The WLQ has been found to be valid and reliable instrument in measuring calling. The scale was used in our study because it has demonstrated high validity index and has been used in most studies involving African samples (e.g., Rothmann & Hamukang’andu, 2013; Van Zyl, Deacon, & Rothmann, 2010). More specifically, Hirschi (2012) in a factor analyses demonstrated that sense of calling is distinct from other related constructs such as psychological meaningfulness. Furthermore, Rothmann and Welsh (2013) and Van Zyl, Deacon, and Rothmann (2010) obtained a coefficient reliability index of .88 and .87, respectively. Cronbach’s α of .86 of the scale was found for the present study.

The Psychological Meaningfulness Scale

Psychological meaningfulness was measured using a scale that was compiled by May et al. (2004). It consists of 6 items that were drawn from Spreitzer (1995) and May (2003) and assesses the degree of meaning that individuals perceive in their work-related activities. These items were rated on a 7-point scale varying from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample item is The work I do on this job is very important to me and “I feel that the work I do on my job is valuable.” Cronbach’s α of .83 was reported for the present study.

The Shortened Version of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006) was used to measure work engagement. It is a 9-item scale that includes 3 items for each engagement dimension: vigor (e.g., At my work, I feel bursting with energy), dedication (e.g., I am enthusiastic about my job), and absorption (e.g., I am immersed in my work). Items were scored on a 7-point rating scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). Cronbach’s α of .90 was obtained for the present study.

Other variables

As control variables, the researchers included gender, age, educational level, marital status, number of children, job status, organizational tenure, and job tenure.

Statistical Analyses

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Version 20.0, was used to analyze the data generated from participants. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate the mean scores and SDs that gave us the direction of relationships among study variables (see Table 1). To reduce the possible effects of intercorrelations among the variables, we conducted a multicollinearity test to determine whether multicollinearity was a problem to the results of the regression analysis. The results of the tests showed that variance inflation factor (VIF) ranged from 1.1 to 2.2 and the tolerance levels ranged between .46 and .97, indicating that multicollinearity is not a problem in the study. Multicolinearity is only seen as a problem in regression analysis when VIF exceeds 10 and the tolerance value is .10 or less (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Our hypotheses were tested using moderated multiple regression in which work engagement was the criterion variable. We standardized scores of the independent and moderator variables before computing to test our hypotheses so as to make the results more interpretable and forestall the issue of multicollinearity as advocated by (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). However, for the regression analyses, we entered the demographic variables (gender, age, education, marital status, number of children, job status, organizational tenure, and job tenure) in the first block of the equation so as to control for any probable confounding or interference they may wield on the criterion variable. This was followed by organizational frustration, sense of calling, and psychological meaningfulness in Blocks 2, 3, and 4, respectively. In Block 5, we entered the interaction between organizational frustration and sense of calling. In the final Block 6, we entered the interaction between organizational frustration and psychological meaningfulness. One of the great advantages of the hierarchical regression analyses used in the study is that it allowed us to determine the unique contributions of the control and independent variables and the moderator variables to the criterion variable (work engagement).

Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviation (SD) and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables.

S/N Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Work engagement 29.96 7.26 (.90)

2 Gender 1.59 0.49 −.09 —

3 Age 41.94 6.10 −.00 .17* —

4 Education 1.57 0.50 .02 .16* .03 —

5 Marital status 1.38 0.49 −.01 −.16* −.28*** −.00 —

6 Number of children 3.34 1.09 .01 −.12* .00 .05 .02 —

7 Job status 1.51 0.50 .09 .06 −.21 .32* .25*** −.01 —

8 Organizational tenur 6.87 2.92 −.14* .10 .38* .02 −.22* −.05 −.20 —

9 Job tenure 12.44 6.60 −.03 .04 .30* −.12* −.33* .09 −.22 .28* —

10 Perceived frustration 13.74 1.98 −.21 .06 −.05 −.05 .01 −.00 −.05 .05 .00 (.73)

11 Sense of calling 19.63 3.48 .22** .18* .03 .09 −.10 −.03 −.09 −.06 .06 .40*** (.86)

12 Psychological meaningfulness 22.89 4.16 .16* −.08 −.04 .01 −.09 −.02 .01 −.06 .00 .36* 47* (.83)

Note. N = 207, Cronbach’s α for applicable scales are reported in parenthesis along the diagonal. Gender was coded 1 = male, 2 = female; educational status was coded 1 = high, 2 = low; marital status was coded 1 = married, 2 = single; and job status was coded 1 = senior, 2 = junior. Organizational tenure, job tenure, age, and number of children were coded in years (i.e., they were entered as they were collected). Perceived organizational frustration, sense of calling, and psychological meaningfulness were coded, such that higher scores indicated high perception of frustration, sense of calling, and psychological meaningfulness.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Results

The results of the descriptive statistics in Table 1 showed that age (r = .17, p < .01), education (r = .16, p < .05), marital status (r = −.16, p < .05), number of children (r = −.12, p < .05), organizational tenure (r = −.14, p < .05), and job tenure (r = .30, p < .001) were all significantly related to work engagement. Perceived organizational frustration was negatively related to work engagement (r = −.21, p < .01). Sense of calling and psychological meaningfulness were significantly and positively related to work engagement (r = .22, p < .01) and (r = .16, p < .05), respectively.

The results of the hierarchical regression analyses presented in Table 2 above showed that of the eight control variables tested, only four were statistically significant. Whereas gender and organizational tenure were negatively related to work engagement: gender (β = −.14, p < .05) and organizational tenure (β = −.19, p < .05); job status and age were positively related to work engagement: job status (β = .16, p < .05) and age (β = .17, p < .05). These control variables accounted for 4.6% of the variance in work engagement. When we checked in the regression equation, perceived frustration was significantly and negatively related to work engagement (β = −.19, p < .01). Perceived organizational frustration accounted for 3.4% of the variance in work engagement far and above the control variables. Sense of calling was significantly and positively related to work engagement (β = .39, p < .001) accounting for 11.5% of the variance in work engagement far and above the control variables and perceived organizational frustration. Psychological meaningfulness was significantly and positively related to work engagement (β = .40, p < .001). It accounted for a significant 7.3% of the variance in work engagement far and above the control variables, perceived organizational frustration, and sense of calling. The results of the analyses also showed that the interaction between perceived organizational frustration and sense of calling interaction was statistically significant (β = .39, p < .001), indicating that sense of calling had a moderating effect in the relationship between perceived organizational frustration and work engagement.

Table 2.
The Moderating Roles of Sense of Calling and Psychological Meaningfulness in the Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Frustration and Work Engagement.

Variables Step 1(β) Step 2 (β) Step 3 (β) Step 4 (β) Step 5 (β) Step 6 (β)

Gender −.10 −.08 −.14* −.07 −.07 −.07

Education −.01 −.02 −.10 −.10 −.03 −.02

Marital status −.03 −.05 −.02 .08 .08 .07

Job status .09 .09 .16* .13 .10 .10

Age .11 .07 .12 .17* .17* .18*

Number of children −.01 −.01 .01 .02 .08 .08

Organizational tenure −.21** −.19* −.09 −.06 −.07 −.09

Job tenure .02 .04 −.06 −.07 −.07 −.06

Perceived frustration −.19* −.34* −.37* −.34* −.34*

Calling .39* .29* .27* .23

Psychological meaningfulness .40* .34* .38*

Frustration × Sense of Calling .39* .34***

Frustration × Psychological Meaningfulness .16*

R ² .01 .04 .15 .22 .37 .39

R ² change .05 .03 .12 .07 .14 .02

F change F(8, 198) = 1.19 F(1, 197) = 7.32 F(1, 196) = 28.01* F(1, 195) = 19.43* F(1, 194) = 46.21* F(1, 193) = 7.15**

F value F(8, 198) = 1.19 F(9, 197) = 1.90* F(10, 196) = 4.75* F(11, 195) = 6.49* F(12, 194) = 11.18* F(13, 193) = 11.20*

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Furthermore, the results of regression analyses showed that the interaction between perceived organizational frustration and psychological meaningfulness was statistically significant (β = .16, p < .05). This result showed that psychological meaningfulness had a moderating effect in the relationship between perceived organizational frustration and work engagement.

The graphical representations of the significant interactions (see Figures 1 and 2) was derived by using the values of the predictor variable (perceived organizational frustration) and the moderators (sense of calling and psychological meaningfulness) variables that were chosen 1 SD above and below the mean (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). As seen in Figure 1, an individual’s belief that he or she has high calling in teaching profession reported being engaged in his or her work despite their perception of high frustration in their organization. On the other hand, the representation of the significant interaction between perceived frustration and psychological meaningfulness (see Figure 2) showed that having high psychological meaningfulness moderated the negative relationship between perceived frustration and work engagement.

Figure 1.
The moderating role of sense of calling in the negative relationship between perceived organizational frustration and work engagement.

Figure 2.
The moderating role of psychological meaningfulness in the negative relationship between perceived organizational frustration and work engagement.

Discussion

The goal of the current study was to examine the link between perceived organizational frustration and work engagement with special emphasis to the moderating roles of sense of calling and psychological meaningfulness in this frustration–engagement link. As hypothesized, the results of the study showed that perceived frustration was negatively related to work engagement. This result is intuitive and the reason for such relationship is quite understood. Perceived organizational frustration occurs when the realization of an organizational goal is inhibited or when there is interference with the occurrence of a goal-directed behavior at a desired time. When this happens, the employees are likely to respond accordingly by indulging in negative organizational behaviors. They may also withdraw their commitment to the goals of the organization. This result seems to be consistent with earlier studies that have linked frustration to self-reported sabotage and interpersonal aggression (Spector, 1975), to a self-reported intention to leave the organization, to angry emotional reactions, latent hostility and job dissatisfaction (Keenan & Newton, 1984). This finding also corroborated prior studies that showed that organizational frustration is positively related to numerous negative behavioral reactions such as aggression, sabotage, hostility and complaining, withdrawal, and intent to quit (Storms & Spector, 1987).

Employees with the sense of calling do not work for financial rewards or for career advancement but for the fulfillment that doing the work brings. They believe that work is an end in itself and is usually associated with the belief that work contributes to the greater good and makes the world a better place (Saraf & Murthy, 2016). People with callings tend to put more time at work (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) whether or not this time is compensated. They report higher job and life satisfaction than those with jobs or careers (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). They also derive more satisfaction from the domain of work than the domain of leisure and hobbies. These points justify why sense of calling was positively related to work engagement and the reason teachers with high sense of calling reported good work engagement level regardless of the experience of high frustration. The results of our moderation tests showed that participants with high sense of calling reported higher work engagement when level of frustration is high than when it is low. This means that participants with high sense of calling see frustrating work environment as challenging and therefore are motivated to become more work engaged in such situations than they would ordinarily be. This result seems to be in alliance with the self-tuning model of self-care (Vinje & Mittelmark, 2008), which postulates that for employees who are able to experience job engagement despite work adversity; a sense of calling is an important requirement. The experiences of employee work engagement lie on the use of available intrapersonal resources (e.g., sense of calling), enabling the employees to cope with high frustration. This is consistent with findings by Bakibinga, Vinje, and Mittelmark (2014) and Vinje and Mittelmark (2008) who in their separate studies found that calling triggers a process that is mediated by introspection and reflection about work life, enabling the employees to adjust and cope better on the job and that when employees utilize this personal resource, they are able to deal with stress effectively, mitigating its deleterious effects and fostering engagement on the job (Vinje & Mittelmark, 2008).

Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000) developed to account for both goal content and the motivational processes that are necessary to achieve goals could be used to further explain this result. SDT explains that need satisfaction is a fundamental condition for individuals’ well-being, and satisfaction of these needs stimulates an individual’s psychological energetic resource and fosters an individual’s performance (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008).

Because these teachers were not motivated by extrinsic values, they maintained their balance in the face of adversities. They display this positive behavior regardless of whether or not they feel they are receiving adequate compensation for their extra work (Hall & Chandler, 2005; Wrzesniewski, 2012). The current findings also have substantiated the relationship between calling and career commitment, greater career commitment, organizational commitment, and lower turnover intentions (Duffy, Allan, Autin, & Bott, 2013; Duffy, Allan, & Dik, 2011; Duffy, Bott, Allan, Torrey, & Dik, 2012), turnover intentions, and organizational commitment (Cardador et al., 2011). However, the current findings seem to differ slightly with some studies (e.g., Duffy & Sedlacek, 2010; Steger et al., 2010) which found a weak positive correlation between calling and life satisfaction and a moderate positive correlation between calling and life meaning.

In addition to addressing the contributions of perceived frustration to work engagement, the link between calling and work engagement, and the moderating role of sense of calling, the present study examined the link between psychological meaningfulness and work engagement and its moderating effects. Consistent with assumptions, the results of the current study showed that psychological meaningfulness was positively related to work engagement and that the interaction effect of between perceived frustration and psychological meaningfulness was significant. This result was expected in that prior research documented that individual’s experience of psychological meaningfulness result in positive work-related outcomes (Olivier & Rothmann, 2007; Wrzesniewski, 2012). This result seems to corroborate earlier studies that employees who find their work life meaningful would continue to work even if they could receive the same salary for not working at all (Isaksen, 2000). The present finding is in line with (Treadgold, 1999) that employees who were more engaged in meaningful work were more intrinsically motivated than employees with low level of meaningfulness. This finding is also consistent with studies which showed that experiences of psychological meaningfulness and employee work engagement are positively related to life satisfaction, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and low turnover intention (Swart & Rothmann, 2012). Furthermore, the present finding agrees with May et al. (2004), which showed that work roles and activities which are in tandem with individuals’ self-concepts are related to more psychologically meaningful work experiences, which also impact individuals’ work engagement in a positive fashion. The moderating role of psychological meaningfulness was supported by Matuska and Christiansen (2008) who stated that psychological meaningfulness is a shield to employees experiencing stressful conditions.

Implications of the Study

Based on the results of the current study, it could be assumed that, within the teaching profession, individuals with a high sense of calling and meaning would have a more positive sense of work engagement regardless of their negative work experiences. Because the present study revealed more closely why callings and psychological meaningfulness have useful outcomes, the results also have implications on how to acquire the benefits characteristically associated with callings and meaning for employees who do not experience them. While other researchers suggest ways of helping people find their calling and where they are best suited (Dik & Duffy, 2009; E. Thompson & Feldman, 2010), the current study suggested enhancing individuals’ sense of work meaningfulness so as to improve their positive work experiences.

Furthermore, our findings that calling and work meaningfulness moderate the relationship between organizational frustration and work engagement suggest that calling and perception of meaningfulness could become resources that would enable workers exhibit positive work behavior even in atmosphere of challenging work environment such as frustration. This could have implications for teacher selection. This is because when individuals believe that they were called into the teaching profession and believe that their work is meaningful, they are more likely to weather the storm and thrive even under difficult work situations. The results of the current study are very useful to counselors and to other stakeholders in teacher management. The results can guide counselors in advising the management about how to make teachers productive. When counselors are recommending teachers to management, there is the need to focus not only on the ability of teachers but on their psychological dispositions, that is, work belief and the value they hold about teaching profession so as to have workforce that are not going to be deterred by any circumstances from discharging their duties to the best of their abilities.

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Future Studies

The results and findings of this study need to be considered in light of a number of limitations, many of which may be opportunities for future research. This study was cross sectional, thus precluding any causal inferences. For instance, one could as well suggest that the direction of the relationship between perceived organizational frustration and work engagement found in this study could actually be a bidirectional. To provide cause–effect relationship, experimental study or longitudinal method of assessment is needed. All the variables in this study were measured using self-report measures, raising concerns regarding common method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Therefore, the procedural solution recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) to deal with this issue was observed. Podsakoff et al. (2003) emphasized that participants’ responses would be kept anonymous and confidential to minimize potential problems related to social desirability bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). This study may have limited generalizability because of the nature of the samples used (teachers).

However, infrastructural deficit characterize the Nigerian schools. This has adversely affected teacher motivation and has encumbered teachers’ level of performance and work engagement (Ugwu & Amazue, 2014). Because teachers with high sense of calling work for the fulfillment that performing the work brings and not for extrinsic rewards, this high sense of calling helped them to cope and became work engaged regardless of experiencing organizational frustration. Such individuals see work as an end in itself and are usually associated with the belief that the work contributes to the greater good of the society (Saraf & Murthy, 2016). Several studies (e.g., Jurcec & Rijavec, 2015; Treadgold, 1999; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) have associated sense of calling with higher job and life satisfaction, better coping, and better well-being scores. Serow, Eaker, and Ciechalski (1992) found that sense of calling was a key factor in choosing teaching as a profession. More so, while recruiting teachers, it will be essential to focus not only on their pedagogical skills and qualifications but also consider underlying motivations because this is likely to provide necessary indicators to ascertain the qualities in teachers during the selection process.

Conclusion

The current study explored the link between perceived organizational frustration and work engagement. It also examined moderating roles of sense of calling and psychological meaningfulness in this frustration–engagement link. Calling and meaningfulness seem to link the fields of vocational psychology and positive psychology, which can explain individuals’ experience of engagement. It is suggested that researchers continue to explore the useful results of establishing the dangers often posed by perceived frustration and at the same time having a calling and making meaning out of one’s work, which deactivates such negative outcome occasioned by perceived frustration. Additionally, it is expected that the results of the current study may add to the literature on how calling orientations and psychological meaningfulness moderated the negative relationship between perceived frustration and work engagement and how these moderators are considered essential and is integrated into stress intervention program. Management of organizations in people-oriented professions may find significance in the knowledge that having a calling and psychological meaningfulness enhance employee work engagement despite their negative work experiences. As such, when performing interventions with employees, it may be useful to focus on issues that get employees to think about what they are called to do and the meaning of their work; such is likely to give employees opportunities to explore what calling and psychological meaningfulness is about and how these may enrich their personal and professional life.

S/N	Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1	Work engagement	29.96	7.26	(.90)
2	Gender	1.59	0.49	−.09	—
3	Age	41.94	6.10	−.00	.17*	—
4	Education	1.57	0.50	.02	.16*	.03	—
5	Marital status	1.38	0.49	−.01	−.16*	−.28***	−.00	—
6	Number of children	3.34	1.09	.01	−.12*	.00	.05	.02	—
7	Job status	1.51	0.50	.09	.06	−.21**	.32***	.25***	−.01	—
8	Organizational tenur	6.87	2.92	−.14*	.10	.38***	.02	−.22***	−.05	−.20**	—
9	Job tenure	12.44	6.60	−.03	.04	.30***	−.12*	−.33***	.09	−.22**	.28***	—
10	Perceived frustration	13.74	1.98	−.21**	.06	−.05	−.05	.01	−.00	−.05	.05	.00	(.73)
11	Sense of calling	19.63	3.48	.22**	.18*	.03	.09	−.10	−.03	−.09	−.06	.06	.40***	(.86)
12	Psychological meaningfulness	22.89	4.16	.16*	−.08	−.04	.01	−.09	−.02	.01	−.06	.00	.36***	47***	(.83)

Variables	Step 1(β)	Step 2 (β)	Step 3 (β)	Step 4 (β)	Step 5 (β)	Step 6 (β)
Gender	−.10	−.08	−.14*	−.07	−.07	−.07
Education	−.01	−.02	−.10	−.10	−.03	−.02
Marital status	−.03	−.05	−.02	.08	.08	.07
Job status	.09	.09	.16*	.13	.10	.10
Age	.11	.07	.12	.17*	.17*	.18*
Number of children	−.01	−.01	.01	.02	.08	.08
Organizational tenure	−.21**	−.19*	−.09	−.06	−.07	−.09
Job tenure	.02	.04	−.06	−.07	−.07	−.06
Perceived frustration		−.19*	−.34***	−.37***	−.34***	−.34***
Calling			.39***	.29***	.27***	.23**
Psychological meaningfulness				.40***	.34***	.38***
Frustration × Sense of Calling					.39***	.34***
Frustration × Psychological Meaningfulness						.16*
R ²	.01	.04	.15	.22	.37	.39
R ² change	.05	.03	.12	.07	.14	.02
F change	F(8, 198) = 1.19	F(1, 197) = 7.32**	F(1, 196) = 28.01***	F(1, 195) = 19.43***	F(1, 194) = 46.21***	F(1, 193) = 7.15**
F value	F(8, 198) = 1.19	F(9, 197) = 1.90*	F(10, 196) = 4.75***	F(11, 195) = 6.49***	F(12, 194) = 11.18***	F(13, 193) = 11.20***

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Airila

(2015). Work characteristics, personal resources, and employee well-being: A longitudinal study among Finnish firefighters. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Finland.

Akinwumi

F. S.

(2000). Impact of motivation and supervision on teacher productivity in secondary schools in Oyo State Nigeria. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Albrecht

S. L.

(2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Arong

F. E.

Ogbadu

M. A.

(2010). Major causes of declining quality of education in Nigeria from administrative perspective: A case study of Dekina local government area. Canadian Social Science, 6, 183–198.

Autin

K. L.

Allan

B. A.

Palaniappan

Duffy

R. D.

(2016). Career calling in India and the United States: A cross-cultural measurement study. Journal of Career Assessment. doi:10.1177/1069072716665860

Bakibinga

Vinje

H. F.

Mittelmark

(2014). The role of religion in the work lives and coping strategies of Ugandan nurses. Journal of Religion and Health, 53, 1342–1352.

Bakker

A. B.

(2015). A job demands–resources approach to public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 75, 723–732.

Bakker

A. B.

Albrecht

S. L.

Leiter

M. P.

(2011). Work engagement: Further reflections on the state of play. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 74–88.

Bakker

A. B.

Bal

P. M.

(2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189–206.

10.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.

11.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209–223.

12.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2014). Job demands–resources theory. In Chen

P. Y.

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Work and wellbeing: Wellbeing: A complete reference guide (Vol. III, pp. 37–64). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

13.

Bakker

A. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(Eds.). (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

14.

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

Taris

T. W.

(2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187–200.

15.

Bell

D. E.

(1985). Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operation Research, 33, 1–27.

16.

Bellah

R. N.

Madsen

Sullivan

W. M.

Swidler

Tipton

S. M.

(1985). Habits of the heart. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

17.

Berg

J. M.

Grant

A. M.

Johnson

(2010). When callings are calling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science, 21, 973–994.

18.

Berkowitz

(1978). Whatever happened to the frustration-aggression hypothesis? American Behavioral Scientist, 21, 691–707.

19.

Breevaart

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2014). Daily self-management and employee work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 31–38.

20.

Briscoe

J. P.

Hall

D. T.

(2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 4–18.

21.

Bunderson

J. S.

Thompson

J. A.

(2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 32–57.

22.

Burke

R. J.

Koyuncu

Jing

Fiksenbaum

(2009). Work engagement among hotel managers in Beijing, China: Potential antecedents and consequences. Tourism Review, 64, 4–18.

23.

Cardador

M. T.

Dane

E. I.

Pratt

M. G.

(2011). Linking calling orientations to organizational attachment via organizational instrumentality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 367–378.

24.

Christian

M. S.

Garza

A. S.

Slaughter

J. E.

(2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.

25.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

26.

Derks

van Duin

Tims

Bakker

A. B.

(2015). Smartphone use and work–home interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 155–177.

27.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 424–450.

28.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Make your job a calling: How the psychology of vocation can change your life at work. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.

29.

Dobrow

S. R.

Tosti-Kharas

(2011). Calling: The development of a scale measure. Personnel Psychology, 64, 1001–1049.

30.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Bott

E. M.

(2013). Calling and life satisfaction: It’s not about having it, it’s about living it. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 42–52.

31.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Bott

E. M.

(2012). Calling and life satisfaction among undergraduate students: Investigating mediators and moderators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 469–479.

32.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Dik

B. J.

(2011). The presence of a calling and academic satisfaction: Exploring potential mediators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 74–80.

33.

Duffy

R. D.

Bott

E. M.

Allan

B. A.

Torrey

C. L.

Dik

B. J.

(2012). Perceiving a calling, living a calling, and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 50–59.

34.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

(2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 428–436.

35.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

Steger

M. F.

(2011). Calling and work-related outcomes: Career commitment as a mediator. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 210–218.

36.

Duffy

R. D.

Sedlacek

W. E.

(2010). The salience of a career calling among college students: Exploring group differences and links to religiousness, life meaning, and life satisfaction. The Career Development Quarterly, 59, 27–41.

37.

Elangovan

A. R.

Pinder

C. C.

McLean

(2010). Callings and organizational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 428–440.

38.

Famade

O. A.

(2012). Re-inventing the Nigerian education system for productivity improvements. Academic Research International, 2, 482–489.

39.

Fox

Spector

P. E.

(1999). A model of work frustration–aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931.

40.

George

Louw

Badenhorst

(2008). Job satisfaction among urban secondary-school teachers in Namibia. South African Journal of Education, 28, 135–154.

41.

Gilovich

Medvec

V. H.

(1995). The experience of regret: What, when, and why. Psychological Review, 102, 379–395.

42.

Gorgievski

M. J.

(2010). Entrepreneurial motivation: Independence, money, self-realization and passion for work. In Luker

Laguna

(Eds.), Entrepreneurship: A psychological approach (pp. 55–72). Prague, Czech Republic: Oeconomica.

43.

Grant

A. M.

(2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393–417.

44.

Hall

D. T.

Chandler

D. E.

(2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 155–176.

45.

Heslin

P. A.

(2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 113–136.

46.

Hirschi

(2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 479–485.

47.

House

Rizzo

(1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 467–505.

48.

Humphrey

S. E.

Nahrgang

J. D.

Morgeson

F. P.

(2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356.

49.

Inoue

Kawakami

Ishizaki

Shimazu

Tabata

Akiyama

… Kuroda

(2009). Organizational justice, psychological distress and work engagement in Japanese workers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 83, 29–38.

50.

Isaksen

(2000). Constructing meaning despite the drudgery of repetitive work. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 40, 84–107.

51.

Judge

T. A.

Bretz

R. D.

(1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal Applied Psychology, 77, 261–271.

52.

Jurcec

Rijavec

(2015). Work orientation and well/ill being of elementary school teachers. Researching paradigms of childhood and education (pp. 100–110). Zagreb, Croatia: Faculty of Teacher Education University of Zagreb.

53.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

54.

Kahn

W. A.

(1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321–349.

55.

Keenan

Newton

T. J.

(1984). Frustration in organizations: Relationships to role stress, climate, and psychological strain. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 57–65.

56.

Kelly

M. J.

(1999). The origins and development of education in Zambia from pre-colonial times to 1996. Lusaka: Zambia Education Publishing House.

57.

Lazar

Jones

Shneiderman

(2006). Workplace user frustration with computers: An exploratory investigation of the causes and severity. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25, 239–251.

58.

Lillis

Krystofiak

Newman

(2007). Doing more harm than good: Unraveling the mystery of frustration effects. Journal of the American Academy of Business, 11, 154–160.

59.

Macey

W. H.

Schneider

(2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3–30.

60.

Matuska

K. M.

Christiansen

C. H.

(2008). A proposed model of lifestyle balance. Journal of Occupational Science, 15, 9–19.

61.

May

D. R.

(2003). Fostering the human spirit at work: Toward an understanding of the influences on employees’ experienced meaningfulness at work. Unpublished manuscript.

62.

May

D. R.

Gilson

R. L.

Harter

L. M.

(2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.

63.

Miles

Van den Bos

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). As long as you are nice to me: Interactions between interactional fairness and outcome fairness on work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 165–174.

64.

Nwikina

Nwanekezi

(2010). Management of job-related teacher burnout in Nigerian schools. Academia Arena, 2, 31–38.

65.

Oates

K. L. M.

Hall

M. E. L.

Anderson

T. L.

(2005). Calling and conflict: A qualitative exploration of inter-role conflict and the sanctification of work in Christian mothers in academia. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33, 210–223.

66.

Olivier

A. L.

Rothmann

(2007). Antecedents of work engagement in a multinational oil company. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 33, 49–56.

67.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

68.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.

69.

Rauh

(2015). Predicting political influence on state ethics commissions: Of course we are ethical—Nudge nudge, wink wink. Public Administration Review, 75, 98–110.

70.

Rich

B. L.

LePine

J. A.

Crawford

E. R.

(2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.

71.

Rosen

Harris

Kacmar

(2009). The emotional implications of organizational politics: A process model. Human Relations, 62, 27–57.

72.

Rosso

B. D.

Dekas

K. H.

Wrzesniewski

(2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127.

73.

Rothmann

Hamukang’andu

(2013). Callings, work role fit, psychological meaningfulness and work engagement among teachers in Zambia. South African Journal of Education, 33, Art. #699, 16 pages. Retrieved from http://www.sajournalofeducation.co.za

74.

Rothmann

(2010). Factors associated with employee engagement in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, 1–12.

75.

Rothmann

Welsh

(2013). Employee engagement in Namibia: The role of psychological conditions. Management Dynamics, 22, 14–25.

76.

Rousseau

D. M.

V. T.

Greenberg

(2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31, 977–994.

77.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

78.

Ryff

C. D.

Singer

(1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1–28.

79.

Samman

(2007). Psychological and subjective well-being: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies, 35, 459–486.

80.

Saraf

Murthy

(2016). Calling work orientation and psychological well being among teachers. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3, 164–173.

81.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.

82.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

Gonzalez-Roma

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

83.

Scheier

M. F.

Carver

C. S.

(1988). A model of behavioral self-regulation: Translating intention into action. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Social psychological studies of the self: Perspectives and programs. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 303–346). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

84.

Schulze

Steyn

(2007). Stressors in the professional lives of South African secondary school educators. South African Journal of Education, 27, 691–707.

85.

Serow

R. C.

Eaker

Ciechalski

(1992). Calling, service, and legitimacy: Professional orientations and career commitment among prospective teachers. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 25, 136–141.

86.

Shamir

(1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organizational Studies, 12, 405–424.

87.

Shaw

Duffy

Abdulla

Singh

(2000). The moderating role of positive affectivity: Empirical evidence from bank employees in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Management, 26, 139–154.

88.

Simpson

M. R.

(2009). Predictors of work engagement among medical-surgical registered nurses. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 31, 44–65.

89.

Spector

P. E.

(1975). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 635–637.

90.

Spector

P. E.

(1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31, 815–829.

91.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.

92.

Steger

M. F.

Pickering

Shin

J. Y.

Dik

B. J.

(2010). Calling in work: Secular or sacred? Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 82–96.

93.

Storms

P. L.

Spector

P. E.

(1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of perceived control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 227–234.

94.

Swart

Rothmann

(2012). Authentic happiness of managers, and individual and organisational outcomes. South African Journal of Psychology, 42, 492–508.

95.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

96.

Taubman-Ben-Ari

Weintroub

(2008). Meaning in life and personal growth among pediatric physicians and nurses. Death Studies, 32, 621–645.

97.

Thompson

Feldman

D. B.

(2010). Let your life speak: Assessing the effectiveness of a program to explore meaning, purpose, and calling with college students. Journal of Employment Counseling, 47, 12–19.

98.

Thompson

J. A.

Bunderson

J. S.

(2003). Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 28, 571–586.

99.

Treadgold

(1999). Transcendent vocations: Their relationship to stress, depression, and clarity of self-concept. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 39, 81–105.

100.

Ugwu

F. O.

Amazue

L. O.

(2014). Psychological ownership, hope, resilience and employee work engagement among teachers in selected mission schools. European Journal of Business and Management, 6, 98–106.

101.

Ugwu

F. O.

Onyishi

I. E.

Rodríguez-Sánchez

A. M.

(2014). Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: The role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 43, 377–400.

102.

Vallerand

R. J.

Blanchard

Mageau

G. A.

Koestner

Ratelle

Léonard

… Marsolais

(2003). Les passions de l’âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 85, 756–767.

103.

Van den Broeck

Vansteenkiste

De Witte

Lens

(2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22, 277–294.

104.

van Woerkom

Bakker

A. B.

Nishii

L. H.

(2016). Accumulative job demands and support for strength use: Fine-tuning the job demands–resources model using conservation of resources theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 141–150.

105.

Van Zyl

L. E.

Deacon

Rothmann

(2010). Towards happiness: Experiences of work-role fit, meaningfulness and work engagement of industrial/organisational psychologists in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, Art. #890, p. 10. doi:10.4102/sajip.v36i1.890

106.

Vinje

H. F.

Mittelmark

M. B.

(2008). Community nurses who thrive: The critical role of job engagement in the face of adversity. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 24, 195–202.

107.

Warr

Inceoglu

(2012). Job engagement, job satisfaction, and contrasting associations with person-job fit. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 129–138.

108.

Wright

T. A.

Cropanzano

(2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 84–94.

109.

Wrzesniewski

(2012). Callings. In Cameron

K. S.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 45–55). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

110.

Wrzesniewski

Dekas

Rosso

(2009). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201.

111.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

J. E.

Debebe

(2003). Interpersonal sense-making and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 93–135.

112.

Wrzesniewski

McCauley

Rozin

Schwartz

(1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21–33.

113.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Organisational and Occupational Psychology, 82, 183–200.